Readers Write In #60: Thugs of Hinduston is a fantastic tribute to Masala cinema and its leading men

On why thugs of Hindostan is no lazy rehash of the masala formula , but a well constructed modern tribute that echoes back to best of the genre.

Thugs of Hinduston has flopped badly at the box office. Neither the big star cast, nor the lucrative diwali weekend could save the film. The film critics have universally panned it. Many are calling it the worst film ever made and such. It goes without saying that I stepped into the theater with great trepidation. But I was pleasantly surprised with what I saw. I found it to be a very enjoyable and satisfying movie for most of its running time that worked more successfully as a post modernistic tribute to masala cinema and its iconic leading men and perhaps a less satisfying yet not an embarrassing stab at masala cinema itself

Obviously the film had a lot of problems starting with the title. I have no idea why it was called Thugs of Hindustan. If at all, it should have been called just Thug , standing in for Aamir Khan’s character who goes around conning people in the early eighteen hundreds. The Title also brought about allegations of it being a poor copy of Hollywood’s pirates of the Caribbean franchise, something that the film can do without. For whatever its worth, the inspiration for the film is not any Hollywood franchise, but our good old masala cinema.

Right from Tashan , Vijay Krishna Acharya has proven that he is a die hard fan of both masala cinema and Amitabh Bachchan. In Tashan, it looked like he wanted to make a full on postmodern masala movie but was forced to change track in the second half to make a more straightforward film. So the film remained uneven, With the first half being a Po Mo exercise and second half aiming to be a regular masala film. Still I found the film quite enjoyable. In Dhoom3, he cut down on the Po Mo aspect to concentrate on making a regular masala film. But the issue here was that the basic template of dhoom franchise borrowed from Hollywood’s bikes and babes pictures was too shallow to hold the masala universe. With Thugs, he seems to have found just the right balance – or at least a more acceptable – in making a masala film which can contain the post modernistic references and tributes without disturbing the main film and yet provide the adequate pleasure to a true masala movie geek

The most likeable aspect of the film for me was the performances of Amitabh Bachchan and Aamir Khan apart from the many movie tributes that is scattered throughout the film, how they played off each other and how their respective characters are conceived in relation to each other. they are what i call the yin and yang of the masala universe. Khudabaksh is from the more serious masala film world of Salim javed, Rajkumar Santhoshi, JP Dutta and all, while Aamir’s character firangi is from the manmohan desai’s light masala universe. Bachchan’s greatness in his hey day was that he could effortlessly straddle both worlds.

Aamir, from lagaan to Dangal, has championed a form of neo masala cinema, where he reworks the masala universe into a less larger than life, more realistic universe to go with our times. The physical violence in Bachchan has mutated into more cerebral nonviolent action in Aamir. Both Vijay and Bhuvan are heroes, but what sets them apart is their modus operandi in tackling the enemy. So its fitting that Aamir plays the younger, more cerebral version of what Amitabh used to play so well in his heydays

Take the character of Khudabaksh played by Amitabh Bachchan, its less a character, more an accumulation of his most iconic moments. Yet it did become a fully realized masala hero for me. His introduction scene in the film references his most massy introduction scenes in three of his earlier films, Coolie, Khuda Gawah and Thoofan. He comes out of nowhere like a god riding a horse to save the life of young Zafira’s who would be played as an adult by Fatima sana Sheikh. Cut to 11 years later, now he is like Don with his own army and his own private hideout. Like in the film Don, when we first meet him in a full on dialogue sequence, he is seen executing a traitor within the gang. Its also fun to see him spit out names of his comrades like Sawant, Akbar, Bhima etc, which are the names of characters he was associated in the past – Akbar was Rishi kapoor’s name in Amar Akbar Anthony and Bhima being the character he himself played in Aaj ka Arjun, one of his more successful movies from the late eighties period where he had a welcome return to the mythical masala roots , as opposed to more comic book masala stuff he was doing – but also to a secular movie past where they tried to include all religions, even if stereotypical, into the movie’s fabric. Khudabaksh itself seems to be a callback to the iconic muslim characters that Bachchan himself has played, like Sikander, Iqbal, Badshah Khan and so on.

What about Aamir’s Firangi?,As I said already it’s a nod to Bachchan’s More lighter masala characters. Think of his son character from Desh Premee . In that film Bachchan put on blackface and sang gore nahin hum kale sahi, here Aamir puts on a blonde wig and impersonates a white man in the surayya song. His manner of speaking with broken English words and his self introduction seem to be inspired from the Arjun singh character from Namak Halaal

That’s not all, Adding one more dimension to the character, It’s also referencing the gallery of lovable rogues that Aamir has played from Jo jeeta wohi sikander to 3 idiots. His introduction scene is a mixture of his dus ka bees , dus ka bees act from Rangeela as well as his iconic Lagaan. This is a more physical, more over the top performance than anything he has given before. But I liked Aamir in his over the top mode mainly because of the kind of actor he is. Someone like Shahrukh Khan is by his nature a very physical performer, a very busy performer. So when he take the hammy route, it becomes intolerable to watch, on the other hand if he could hold his energy and his hamminess just a little bit he is able to deliver striking performances as in Swades or Chak De. Aamir is exactly the opposite. By nature , he is a very subdued, very subtle performer to an extent that his performance fails to register sometimes. He is very enjoyable here most of the times and sometimes I see him falling flat trying too hard, but he is still tolerable.

The main plot point of Aamir infiltrating Bachchan’s gang at the instigation of the British authorities can be attributed to Don. The film is also heavily inspired by the masala pastiche template of Sholay. Very serious scenes interspersed with more lowbrow humor. Aamir even does a chaplinseque nod as Asrani does in that film. You can see the symmetry in characters too. Bachchan- fatima duo standing in for is sanjeev kumar jaya bhaduri duo. Aamir is mixture of veeru and basanti, conning & fast talking gibberish. there it was dhanno the horse, here its nawab the ass. Gabbar and bandits morph into Clive and the east India company.

Post his accepting Aamir into his gang, there follows a rather in your face masala scene of Bachchan working the field on a barren land. The dialogue that follows between Him and Aamir about his obsession, is a fine nod to a similar scene in Sholay between Jai and veeru. These 2 hardened criminals have decided to give up a life of crime to settle down in the village and become farmers. Veeru has doubts whether they can adapt to the new life style, Jai convinces him with the immortal line, Burai ne bandook chalana sikhaya that , ab neki hal chalana sikhayegi. In thugs, Bachchan’s character was a farmer, before love for his country forced him to pick up weapons and become a rebel. His act is to keep the dream alive for himself and others of returning to farming and a peaceful life.

More tributes follow just before the interval point. Once Aamir betrays him to the british, both of them are locked in a duel reminiscent of the Bachchan –Dara singh duel at the end of Mard. There, a revelation of them being father and son changes the nature of the duel and they decided to join forces to fight the british. Here its more of a awakening of conscious in Aamir that changes the course of the duel, when he saves Bachchan from death. Bachchan decides to embark upon a suicide mission to destroy the british ship, handing over the protection of Zafira as well as the reigns of the film to Aamir. In an echo of the first scene with Bachchan saving the young Zafira, here Aamir saves her from the british and take her to safety, while Bachchan reminiscent of his most iconic scene in Agneepath rams his burning ship into the other destroying it and perhaps killing himself in the process . The famous aswa shweth rakth se latpat poetry recitation becomes sheesham ke ghode pe aayeg sawaari shaamt gunehgaron ki

Undoubtedly this first half of thugs is the most entertaining, most absorbing and most fun. Once Bachchan is presumed to be dead, the film goes dead for a time too. Post the interval, the film loses its momentum. The tributes disappear and it becomes more of a straightforward masala film, and without Bachchan’s character the film becomes off balance. Even more grating is the filmmakers obsession to Jack sparrow-fy Aamir’s character, where its repeatedly hinted that Aamir has no control of his nature and he himself is afraid when he would become bad again. That’s strict no-no for a masala hero. It’s a good tactic to turn the central avenging angel in a masala film into a female character, but here Fatima’s Zafira is so badly conceived and even more badly enacted that it leaves a big whole in the masala heart of the film. It also points out to the fact that we don’t have masala film heroines of the caliber of Rekha, Reena roy, etc anymore who can convincingly pull off the requirements of the masala universe

But once Bachchan returns to screen, all shackled and angry in his Kaalia mode the film springs back to life. The final forty minutes of the film again becomes a masala treat with nodes to Kranti, Shaan etc. the film also brings back the tradition of the climactic song sequence which was a must of very popular masala film, even though , here the song is not as rousing or spectacular as say the one in Kranti, it still makes an impact

So all said and done, there was lots to love in the film. I understand why a large part of the audience did not get it. Today’s audience are very removed from the masala film culture . Beyond that they look down upon them with derision as a lot of modern Indians do to a lot of the traditional aspects of Indian culture. In the end, the film turned out to be a satisfying, if not totally fulfilling, exercise, in creating a deserving tribute to the legacy of masala cinema and its leading stars.

” Today’s audience are very removed from the masala film culture . Beyond that they look down upon them with derision as a lot of modern Indians do to a lot of the traditional aspects of Indian culture. ” – I think it’s more the former than the latter. Batti Gul Meter Chalu worked for me but didn’t for many others. Due to lack of exposure, we have perhaps lost the taste for masala. I would argue that ADHM was an old fashioned love triangle tragedy in KJo Armani. It didn’t work for either of us but it did for others. I think the fundamental problem is people don’t communicate like that anymore (if they ever did but earlier all films were dramatised and there was no ‘real dialogue’ alternative) so there’s always going to be a section of the audience that finds masala style dialogue too dramatized. And then, for many of us, things like love triangles trigger the memory bank of a zillion masala movies previously watched and we start going deja vu. We have got used to Bollywood trying to innovate on content rather than form. This naturally disadvantages masala because masala by its nature revolves around varied treatment of a set of time-worn stories. If it wasn’t, then it wouldn’t be masala anymore. That is also why the masala treatment still works in grand historicals or fantasies (i.e. Padmavat/Baahubali) because there the opulence and heightened pitch both feel appropriate and the visuals are very compelling and by themselves invite people to come watch it in a cinema hall.

Wow. Makes me think that art is more about what we see in something than what it is. Very well written. But do you think an elaborately constructed world of references works as a movie without a conscious “justification” from the viewer’s side? More so for the younger generation that did not grow up with Bachchan/True masala culture as part of their childhood?

MANK – 🙂 Boy, that was some deconstruction. And I agree with a lot of what you say as well – to me, this was an ode to the masala universe.

By the way, ‘Khuda Baksh’ was Danny’s character in Khuda Gawah, where Bachchan played Badshah Khan.

I agree with you about Fatima’s character – Zafira was so poorly written; the young Zafira had more fire than Fatima did, but the character arc did her no favours either.

I disagree that the Aamir’s character’s dilemma about turning bad again did not work. To me, he’s worried about turning good. His inherent nature is to deceive and he doesn’t really suffer many pangs of guilt about being bad. In that, he’s ‘All for me, and I for myself as well’. Actually, I liked that scene – for the first time in his life, he’s doing something that does not profit him. And the payoff may be death. His ‘kameenapan‘ is his armour.

I really loved Firangi – if it hadn’t been for the fact that I knew he was going to be ‘good guy’ in the end, I would have loved him even more. Just imagine what a Sriram Raghavan could do with such a conniving character.

I did like the film. I’m glad I didn’t back out of going and watching it on my own. It really was worth the price of the ticket, and the big screen experience.

AdhithyaKR: But do you think an elaborately constructed world of references works as a movie without a conscious “justification” from the viewer’s side?

Great question, Adhithya, and this is where I’d differ from MANK. For me — again, this is a personal thing, so others may differ — references work IF supported by appropriate world-building. The new Star Wars movies fail in that regard. They are so busy referencing and echoing that they forget to build THEIR OWN world.

For me, this is why I said (in my review): “To stave off the predictability, the film reaches for masala echoes: Amitabh Bachchan’s eagle from Coolie, Hema Malini’s dance in the villain’s den from Sholay (here, too, a character is shackled in chains), and even Kamal Haasan’s stunt from Oru Kaidhiyin Diary, where a statue comes to “life”. But without strong writing, echoes are just a lazy wink, the cinematic equivalent of a Throwback Thursday photo on your Facebook feed.”

The references are no doubt fun. But they cannot BECOME the movie (for me). Jhoom Barabar Jhoom, for me, is a very good example of how to take the masala flavour (though the Nasir Husain brand of masala, not the Salim javed or Manmohan Desai brand), modernise it and still make YOUR OWN MOVIE.

Here, I felt there was so much winking that the film itself never came into its own.

PS: All this, of course, depends on how seriously you take masala. Ad I’m glad TOH provoked MANK to write this piece.

Masala movies of 70s and 80s are unwatchable today because they are badly dated. Why would they like a new movie of the same template. The taste of a common man has improved. WHy would anyone wish a decline ?

1.Khudabaksh is from the more serious masala film world of Salim javed, Rajkumar Santhoshi, JP Dutta and all, while Aamir’s character firangi is from the manmohan desai’s light masala universe. Bachchan’s greatness in his hey day was that he could effortlessly straddle both worlds.

2.His introduction scene in the film references his most massy introduction scenes in three of his earlier films, Coolie, Khuda Gawah and Thoofan. He comes out of nowhere like a god riding a horse to save the life of young Zafira’s

3.What about Aamir’s Firangi?,As I said already it’s a nod to Bachchan’s More lighter masala characters.His manner of speaking with broken English words and his self introduction seem to be inspired from the Arjun singh character from Namak Halaal.

5.But once Bachchan returns to screen, all shackled and angry in his Kaalia mode the film springs back to life. The final forty minutes of the film again becomes a masala treat with nodes to Kranti, Shaan etc. the film also brings back the tradition of the climactic song sequence which was a must of very popular masala film, even though , here the song is not as rousing or spectacular as say the one in Kranti, it still makes an impact

Matlab what a tribute penned by you to Masala Cinema and Bachchan Sahab.

“Masala movies of 70s and 80s are unwatchable today because they are badly dated” – Some (ok many), not all. AB’s 70s canon is still pretty decent and watchable coming up to maybe Khuddar. From Naseeb/Namak Halal onwards, it’s a shitshow. I agree with your broader point that it’s easier to reflect on only the good things/good movies now with the benefit of hindsight and forget about how bad the median was. The 80s did produce some great Hindi movies, some of the best of all time. None of them, unfortunately, were masala movies – JBDY, Ardhsathya, Arth, New Delhi Times.

To my mind, Sarfarosh was the last true masala blockbuster that was also pretty well made. KNPH ran mostly on the freshness of Hrithik and Amisha while being very predictable as a story, Gaddar had a gripping first half and fell off the Sunny cliff in the second. After that, DCH happened and changed the vocabulary of Hindi movies before. It’s been a long time. Masala isn’t coming back, ever.

“Some (ok many), not all. AB’s 70s canon is still pretty decent and watchable coming up to maybe Khuddar”

Not sure. I was in my teens when Suhaag (1978), Natwaral (1979), Laawaris, Naseeb Kaalia (1981) all released. I have not seen them till date. And I missed most of his 80s movies. The one movie I liked was Ek Hi Raasta (remake of Oru Kaidian Diary).

I can safely 90% of AB’s movies are unwatchable. He has a bad ratio of good to bad movies.

Actually it’s the combination of the two actors and the references that worked to make the universe for me

They are the two towers on which it stands and the directors previous work in tashan. I don’t think I would have bought it with any other set of actors. I feel the work the director has invested in creating this universe, rightly or wrongly

And no, it’s not some Clarion call to return to the utopian eighties. Even I don’t watch those horrible Mithun Dharmendra movies. Or even Bachchan films like yaraana, khuddar, jaadugar and so on

Anu, that’s right about khudabaksh. Azaad comes from main azaad Hoon. I think he even say the line from the film,main azaad Hoon, tum aazad ho, hum sab azaad Hain

Regarding Firangi, he will fit perfectly in Sriram ragavan film, but he would not make a good masala hero. The character has to be someone who is bad on the outside but good inside and he traverses an arc from bad to becoming good.. but if being bad is something out of his control, then he will not behave consistently so good. the way he does in the second half. All the cons that he pull, all his volte faces is to favor the good side. He first cons the British in coming to the island and destroy their ships. They then go to kill Clive, but realize that Azaad is still alive. So he acts like he I s switching sides so that he can free azaad, then the final showdown. So that Jack sparrow style quirks about being unpredictable were unnecessary and are inconsistent with the character. It was just a bad attempt at making the character a little hip.Yes if he was truthful to his character, he would turn bad at the end and sell everybody out 😀

Madan, actually 80s produced some of the greatest masala movies. Ghulami, yateem, hathyar, dacait, naam, Arjun, perhaps even some good ones like mashaal, kabzaa, tezaab. There were also the Subhash ghai films depending upon your taste

But the rest were horrible. Even Bachchan films became very bad by the end of 80s. can’t believe Prakash mehra who made muqaddar ka sikander and laawaris would make jaadugar. Even manmohan Desai lost his touch in his last few movies

cinephiles are going to find more layers (cinematic and social) in this film in coming years. critics who rubbished the film with generic contempt invented by trolls, unwittingly killed a smasher of a big screen film,

“Today’s audience are very removed from the masala film culture . Beyond that they look down upon them with derision as a lot of modern Indians do to a lot of the traditional aspects of Indian culture”

Salman Khan is the biggest star in the country. Down south, it is Rajnikanth, Vijay, Ajith, Junior NTR, Ramcharan etc. If not masala movies, what other genre of movies are these actors making? A section of audience that frequent english blogs might hate these movies and prefer niche cinema but vast majority of folks will not watch a Merku Thodarchi Malai even if you offer free tickets but eagerly await the next masala movie from their fav star.

PS: I haven’t watched a lot of 70s Bollywood movies except the super popular ones. But I have seen the tamil remakes of many of these movies and I don’t think the current masala movies are significantly different from these 70s/80s movies.

Bite your tongue, Sir! 🙂 Or rather, ‘speak for yourself’. I can still watch Sholay. Even when I know every single dialogue by heart. And I still find a lump in my throat when Jai dies and Radha shuts the window.

It’s a film that, three decades after its release, I could show my son (brought up here). He loved it. And he’s now shown it to his friends – Americans all – and they love it. Some of them have watched it three or four times. 🙂

Now if I can persuade my younger son to sit still and watch it with me, I will have successfully indoctrinated the next generation into Amitabh-and-masala-love.

@MANK, but bad is not out of his control. Even that conceit is deceit. Firangi is not really ‘good’ inside. And he would have sold everyone out if he could have.

In fact, he does – at one point. He gets pulled into this caper against his will. Guilt, perhaps? Sort of a payback for the salt eaten or something. Then he goes right back to being bad – witness the last scene. He’s still a charlatan and will continue being so.

Hence the exasperation when he turns ‘good’. There is a very self-aware irony in the way Aamir says that.

Anu: You are talking about a character-driven movie. The character you envisage is simply not possible in a masala-universe “hero” — i..e. ONCE the transformation to “good” has happened, there can be no going back.

Take Jai/Veeru. They want to take the Thakur’s money and run. But once they are convinced, there can be no going back. The universe won’t allow it. And we won’t buy it either. Plus, the hero’s stardom won’t allow it either. (In a Talaash kind of movie, Aamir can act shify. That is out of the masala universe.)

I said as much in my review.

The only way this story would have worked is if we were constantly kept on edge about whether Firangi Mallah is a rogue or a nice guy — and with a superstar like Aamir Khan, it’s never in doubt that he will feel a twinge of conscience and rise against the British. He did it in Lagaan. He did it in Mangal Pandey. Are we really to imagine that, this time, things will be different?

Madan, I saw both ghulami and Hathyar recently. They still hold up. Ghulami delved into some serious issues of caste and class struggles. Hathyar, even in it’s huge masala universe, was more of a polemic on how movies are corrupting the youth in turning to crime. Both the films boast some extrodinary acting performances from Dharmendra, Rishi Kapoor etc

Agreed about sholay, some scenes like the train fight sequence are yet to be bested on indian screen. I think all Salim Javed movies hold up. Deewaar,thrishul, they all had some thing modern and timeless about them

Thanks an jo Saab. Your piece is fantastic
One more thing about Aamir’s bachchan homage. Aamir and his soft romantic love stories started out as rivals to then aging Bachchans masala heroics. He even made some rude remarks against bachchan at that time for influencing the youth wrongly. But soon we saw Aamir himself changing tracks. And with ghulam and sarfarosh he was firmly in bachchan territory. After that, he would become the torch bearer of masala films , albeit a more subdued, sophisticated form of masala .through which he achieves an incredible hundred percent success rate . Something very similar to what happens to them in the film.. Now when he tries to do a full blooded masala film in the old bachchan vein, he tastes failure. His last flop Mela was also a similar attempt at old fashioned masala.

Ok I do not want to fight over this issue about tastes but if masala was dead, then how is it that “Dabangg” (which I loved btw, the first movie, not the second) did so well? And Singham, Rowdy Rathore, hell almost every Salman blockbuster – isn’t that Masala?

And yes, some movies are dated but it sounds a little elitist to be so dismissive – I still love watching “Amar Akbar Anthony” , Sholay, Don and Namak Halal.

We are too embedded in our mobile screens right now. And are getting influenced by collective loud thinking that comes with new consumer technology. Early years of cinema too, saw propagandists lapping it up and using ownership to canvass their political/ideological agendas. So im not worried about the explicit or implicit right wing tones of deriding films and film stars.

People are consuming spoofs more than films in theatres. We consume news (through whatsapp, twitter, fb feeds) to reassure our biases, not because we care (so no effort to listen to a different viewpoint without posting abuse).

What’s worrying is just like tv news anchors started picking their cues from twitter et al, pre 2014, many of our film critics who’ve found audience post social media are not considering the factor that trolls could piggyback them, and feed it back to professionals who video write on popular culture at a time when video journalism is still finding its grammar in the new media space.

The success of Padmavat at the begining of the year, and failure of Thugs of Hindostan towards the end of the year has a resounding message for those who care for a certain kind of nation building.

The difference between mobile screen content and traditional big screen content is that mobile is all about amplifying our own lives, and the big screen has more scope of experiencing new worlds. Big screen make us more open due to its nature of communal viewing. We are killing it unwittingly.

Yes, 80s alternative cinema was great. It put focus on realism. But it didn’t last – and the hardcore realism had to be blended with the dramatic grammar of ‘masala films’. In what measures depend on the storyteller. Films like Parinda, Saaransh and many more attempted deep entertainment quite successfully. And gave us filmmakers who’ve lasted long and remain relevant even now.

At the end of the day, cinema is a mass art to be enjoyed with strangers, in a dark room. I feel the excitement for the filmmaker is to evoke collective emotions, and find a connect. And subconsciously also reveal the times we are living in. Salim-Javed have repeatedly said in interviews, that when they were writing those films/characters, they didn’t think about the sociology of the film at all. It just happened.

Filmmaker Sudhir Mishra in an interview once said (I think he was quoting his mentor Saeed Mirza, or maybe he said it himself) – “You are not making films about details. You make films about people.”

The failure of Thugs of Hindostan is crushing for me because it shrinks the scope to experiment with the screenplay in a tentpole film. Despite the fact that the film flows seamlessly, is visually stunning and overall watchable. Is thoroughly entertaining in parts, and has got a cut loose Aamir which was so refreshing and my take away.

@MANK —Loved your review. And many of the comments that have followed. I have been saddened that this film failed. Can understand to an extent,younger audiences not connecting … but our esteemed critics too have let me down by dismissing a genre of Indian film, Bachchan’s classic masala. And as an Aamir fan since his exquisite Sarfarosh… the rejection of TOH was heartbreaking. This film is obviously a nod to masala. Plus there are so many references to well loved seventies cinema.

I loved the mix of humour, drama, the delicious Firangi and his sudden spurts of conscience…. and the last scene was a hoot! Katrina inside a container, showing herself into the boat…. We left the hall laughing. Zeeshan Ayub playing Firangi’s childhood friend was was a surprising delight. And that map showing ‘Inglistan’…😄

Despite some stiff parts, post interval, the film came alive again, left me satisfied. Maybe the Manzoor e Khuda song sequence needed to be pruned. But the final scene left me smiling. Pity the way this film has been demonised as the worst Bollywood film ever. I could make a list of films far inferior, intolerable.

@tambi Not called Parinda a classic. Yes, it could be polarizing coz it certainly tried to be creative. What I meant was that there were filmmakers then who tried to make films that may have a typical plot, but they tried to mount them in a way which is fresh – reason some films people keep revisiting. It could be the cinematography, music, performances or just moments. One thing or more than one thing.

I think 1942 and Mission Kashmir were engaging. Don’t know why would you call him boring.

Rockstar, Tamasha were not worthy for many. For me, they are worth revisiting. Especially Tamasha. What a classic!

The character you envisage is simply not possible in a masala-universe “hero” — i..e. ONCE the transformation to “good” has happened, there can be no going back.

So both you and MANK are arguing is that FIrangi was not true to his universe? Hmm… yes, I can see that. For me, Firangi was true to his character. He knows how easy it is to slip back into deceit – so that scene where he has a moment of introspection worked for me.

@Tambi – ‘speak for yourself’ was a joke. But yes, there is ‘speaking for oneself’ and there’s ‘making definitive statements’. And your comment about Sholay seemed like the latter. That is, you’re of course still speaking for yourself but you’re making a sweeping generalisation about something – an opinion that countless others don’t share.

Madan: Arth Satya is essentially an “art” movie which attained box office success and hence should not be counted as a mainstream 80s movie. The director Govind Nihalani also made Aakrosh (1980), Party (1985 – bad movie), Aaghat (1986), Tamas – TV serial (1987) and none of which were a commercial success.

Speaking of Aakrosh, it was the first “art” movie which made me realize that how pathetic are our commercial movies made by the likes of Manmohan Desai. The caste oppression, which we are now seeing in movies like Pariyerum Perumal was shown so well and IMO better than PP. It was great to watch in 1980 and it is great to watch in 2018 also.

Rocky, yaar I love the first hour of yaraana with bachchan in comic mode and some great songs, but I never figured out how both bachchan and amjad Khan ends up in a mental hospital in second half 😀

Rakesh Kumar must be the craziest bachchan director. His do aur do paanch also was breezy comedy with bachchan and Shashi Kapoor one upping each other for first couple of hours, but what the hell happened after that. Teachers chasing students through the playground to keep them awake or something.

Btw, this is how Aamir Khan reacts to failure according to Anupama Chopra
If a film doesn’t work, it hurts….it hurts like mad. I still respect that decision because that’s the audience I’ve made it for and they haven’t liked it. I usually go into depression and I cry a lot. I’m a person who doesn’t hold back emotionally. I feel that you have to live through failure or loss. You have to allow yourself to feel so you can put it aside. If you deny it, it remains with you all your life.

Like I said in the 2.0 thread, it would be nice to have a wiki with definition and canonical examples of masala films from every decade or era, the different shades of masala and their exponents etc. It doesn’t have to be comprehensive at the beginning, I’m sure that the readers will pitch in if the page is put up.

Munir Syed , parinda was a great exercise in style.there are some great scenes like when Anil Kapoor goes for his first kill or shooting of Anupam kher. But the film loses track after a point. The first half was taken from on the waterfront, then it takes a detour. The second half problem is there in all VVC films. 1942 is also like watching 2 different films. That climax looks like it belongs I n some other film

I liked eklavya though, that’s up until the final scene where Sanjay dutt appears with the suicide note. That was terribly contrived. Otherwise it is one of the most visually stunning movies ever made

Tambi Dude: Never said Ardh Satya was mainstream. In fact I specifically said those films which were the pick of the 80s were not masala. My favourite masala film of the 80s is probably Mr India. Salim Javed got back to entertain us one last time. I don’t think anybody else really figured out how to entertain and still strike a deeper chord quite like this duo.

When I was living in Toronto, Mr. India was shown in the cable TV and I found it horribly silly. This was around 2003/04. I even asked in RAMLI newsgroup (that’s where I met BR) whether it is a movie meant for kids 🙂

Kadamai Kanayam Kattipadu (mercifully Kamal did not act, he would have been no match to Satyaraj)
Poovizhi vasalile
Apoorva Sahodargal

80s was an era when Tamil movies were clearly better than Hindi movies. I am talking about only mainstream movies. Tam movies never had a concept of art movies or movie makers like Govind Nihalani. Their market size did not permit space for alternative movies. It was only in the second half of 90s Hindi movies started catching up and the decade of 00s they were better than Tam. Resurgence of tam movies only started in the last 10 yrs or so and now I looked forward to them more than Hindi movies, which seem to have stuck in a rut. Of course I look forward to movie like Pariyerum Perumal and not over-rated shit like CCV. I saw both movies last weekend.

If we go back to 50s 60s and 70s, the stark difference between tam and hindi movies was in the style of acting. HM had actors like Ashok Kumar and Rehman whose style does not look dated even today, but god one has to be a tamil to appreciate Sivaji Ganeshan.

Rocky, the hype about hum started almost a year before it’s release when Amitabh performed jhumma chumma at his US concert. That was an unheard of thing back then. But the film worked in a big way at the box office didn’t it ? It had 3 house full weeks or so. Those 3 films with mukul Anand was Bachchan trying to graduate into more mature, age appropriate roles. But he was disappointed with his films repeatedly underperforming and just quit for 5 years.

Madan, Ardh Satya was the rare art film that worked commercially. Post the success, even Amitabh bachchan was planning to work with Nihalani, but it didn’t work out. They had to wait for 20 years before they made Dev

It’s true what you said about Salim Javed. Btw Mr India was made after they split and only Javed Akthar was involved with the shooting process. The split affected Salim Khan severely. Apart from Naam, nothing he wrote worked, while Akthar went from strength to strength as a writer – even though nothing he wrote matched their combined work- and then as a lyricist

It is called family obligation (read earning brownie points from begum). When you are in front of TV and deciding what to watch, sometimes it is OK to knowingly go for a movie from which you have little expectations.

Actually after Guru I have avoided practically all movies of MR. I have not seen Ravanana, Kadal, Kaatru Veliyidai and may be other movies he made. Saw OKK with begum and disliked it too, but not as much as CCV.

Same thing happens when you are on a long flight and in-flight entertainment allows you to pick movies like Race-2.

Er, if you watched a movie with her to earn brownie points, and then spent the next lifetime calling it silly/ over-rated shit, etc. wouldn’t those brownie points soon slide into the negative?

As BR says, there are certain film-makers whose work my husband doesn’t like. He appreciates SLB’s operatic aesthetic for instance, but he would much prefer ‘for a dentist to be drilling’ than actually watch his films. So I go for those movies with friends, or alone. If he were to come with me to earn brownie points and then condemned the films (and by extension, my tastes in film watching), we would return home to the mother of all wars.

BR is on target here – don’t watch a movie you don’t like; don’t watch movies by film-makers you think silly or over-rated. Just don’t rain on our parade. 🙂

Disclaimer: General ‘you’ here. Only the initial para is my direct response to Dude. The rest is just riffing off BR’s comment.

True, however Naam was such a well written film, Akeyla was also good but bombed unfortunately.

Aside- he dot really mad at Bachchan when Bachchan credited getting the role of Jai in Sholay to Dharmendra. Salim was like- AB is being dishonest , and it was actually S-J who convinced Ramesh Sippy to take Bachchan.

“80s was an era when Tamil movies were clearly better than Hindi movies. ” – No argument there as far as the mainstream head to head goes. Even late 90s Hindi wasn’t too great. As in the 80s, the impetus came more from left field, with films like Satya or Nihalani’s Thakshak. Sarfarosh was taut and overall well made but not until DCH did I think Bollywood was going somewhere where Tamil wasn’t. Even today, it’s largely only these ‘multiplex’ films that are well made (or better than Tamil); as others have pointed out, the commercial action films of today in Hindi are terrible. And I would not say the multiplex films are necessarily better than small budget Tamil treats like OAK or even a kinda middle budget film like Theeran Adhigaram Ondru. The problem in Bollywood right now is action has been left completely to the big star projects (usually starring Salman or Tiger). Only John Abraham is trying and he is hedging his bets by connecting it to some modern history event of India that the public would remember (Madras Cafe, Parmanu).

TambiDude: Aiyo, Dil Toh Pagal Hai must have been really awful to get through. Hated it even at the time. On the other hand, I could tolerate My Best Friend’s Wedding and do like JWM. I know lot of people were turned off by Kareena’s vaayali act in the first half though.

The problem with tam movies is that the scope for experimentation is very less. They are force to add elements to ensure BO success.

You mentioned Theeran Adhigaram Ondru. It had so many useless masala ingredients. I absolutely hated the so called love scenes between Rakul Preeti and Karthi with all those maama maama songs [seriously are they encourage Consanguineous marriage ]. Highly irritating. It diluted otherwise tight script. Now compare this with A Wednesday, or Manorama 6 feet under.

In Hey Ram Kamal tried to eliminate all BO requirement of tamil movies and he learned his lesson.

However I love tam movies in one aspect. They make rural or semi urban movies much better than Hindi. In Hindi , a good movie has to be highly urbanized (exceptions are there like Gangs of Wasseypur, Barelli Ki Barfi). In Tam, Paruthi Veeran, Subramania Puram, Visaranai etc has shown that you don’t need urban themes like DCH to make a good movie.

Lastly, as Kamal pointed out in an interview, the whole concept of acting in Hindi movies has seen incredible improvement and tam movies can learn from them.

I never thought a day will come when I will enjoy acting by Dharamendara, as he did in Johnny Gaddar.

Rocky, the villain in Akayla was terrible.there was also problem with Bachchans characterisation , a mixture of drunken tragic lover and masala hero. It didn’t help that Ramesh sippy too had lost his touch by that time

Salim sahab didn’t have to make such a big issue of Bachchans comment. He has always given due credit to Salim Javed for the contribution to his career. If he thinks Dharmendra had something to do with him getting that role then there must be

Madan, that’s very true about Hindi multiplex cinema. Apart from an Andhadhun here and there, they just make safe comfortable films. Badhai ho, sui dhaaga that doesn’t disturb the audience too much. Tamil cinema has the dark myshkin films, vetrimaran films, there are now good urban crime thrillers being made like D16 or iravukku ayiram kangal. There are the big budget and middle budget masala films. You never get to see an unusual B masala film like thimiru pudichavan in Hindi.Tamil cinema is much more interesting and versatile than Hindi cinema today

Movie viewing is very subjective. So, we need to be a little careful and say ‘I did not like it.” or “I think…” instead of “It is a bad movie”. (This is specifically to Tambi Dude. and generally note to self)

While on Masala movies, Hum is one of my favorites – I watched it on TV though and still can watch it when it comes on – love the scene where Amitabh brings his brothers home from the bar and admonishes them for fighting, and his brothers tell him that he will not understand because he never gets angry and never fights.

I am sure it is not all original – but frankly, movies are make believe, and I will use BR’s arguments here (sorry BR): if it can make me believe in what happened, all for it.

Not going into Hindi movie maturity etc here, there are many more readers who know it better than me, though sometimes I think the region we belong to in India matters in how we view movies.

Btw, watched Thugs of Hindostan yesterday – weekday matinee show in a hall in US – husband and I had the whole auditorium to ourselves, so that worked out great. As for the movie – some parts worked for me, some didn’t, more details later.

Thank you MANK for a wonderfully engaged reading of Thugs. This is particularly creditable in our times when many critics are finding it difficult to enter or even recognize the world that directors are making for their audience.

I think a song of the film (Suraiyya) could provide a clue to your question – why thugs and not thug? In that song, it’s clear that the East India Company (EIC) and its officials are thugs too. As you know, the EIC is known as the world’s first multinational corporation – ergo the corporation is a thug. This has resonance in our times and is also in tune with the director’s depiction of banks in Dhoom 3 and the political thrust of many masala films of the 70s and 80s that you have listed.

There is of course a delicious irony in all of this. The producers of this film, YRF, is a big media corporation that hiked ticket prices for the viewers to enjoy the game of one -upmanship with the first corporation.

If he thinks Dharmendra had something to do with him getting that role then there must be

MANK, true. Because Amitabh personally approached Dharmendra and begged him to recommend him. The initial choice was Shatrughan Sinha. Dharmendra has gone on record to state that Shatru was very miffed with him (they were good friends) but he had promised Amitabh that he would. And so the die was cast.

I’m sure Salim-Javed had recommended him too but it was Dharam paaji’s recthat tipped the scales.

It was Prakash Mehra who took SJ’s word and cast AB for Zanjeer.They had seen him in the fight scene in Bombay to Goa and were impressed.

AB has always credited SJ for making him the ‘Angry Young Man’. So I don’t know what Salim’s beef with him is. He has also credited Mehmood for giving him Bombay to Goa (AB was friends with Mehmood ‘s younger brother), Dharmendra for helping him get Sholay, Hrishida for giving him the roles he did, and Yash Chopra for helping him in the dark days after the ABCL debacle.

This is a terrific piece MANK. Do not have anything specific to say because I haven’t watched Thugs. But I think as someone who saw a lot of movies in the 80s , would like to defend the masala offerings of that period. There were many legit good film makers -will name a few like Mahesh Bhatt, Rahul Rawail, Subhash Ghai, Bapu etc. who made quite wholesome and sophisticated masala fare – we can call it restaurant level stuff. But I think even the street food level masala stuff served by people like Anil Sharma (Hukumat,Elaan-E-Jung,Tahalka), Umesh Mehra (Ashanti – my favorite, Kasam, Mujrim), Arjun Hingorani (Katilon Ke Kaatil,Karishma Kudrat Kaa) was highly enjoyable. The latter category i think deserves to be written about more so as to make them accessible to a newer generation of cinema goers.

Also, if you compare the acting chops of the 80s stars like Anil Kapoor, Jackie Shroff, Sunny, Mithun even Sanjay Dutt, i think the khans and the newer actors do not match up.

I think the thing about Masala is that it has to evolve with the persona of the leading men. All three leading stars of the 90s – the Khans, did not start off in characters that would fit easily in 80s single screen masala fare. its only in the latter half of their careers have they pivoted. If we can get a good star who can do masala well then it will make a come back. Mohit Ahlawat in James was promising but presumably he lost interest in movies. The vacuum was filled by a different kind of masala by Aadi chopra and k jo stable of film makers.

@Tambi Dude: A Wednesday was a very focused film but many Hindi films aren’t. And most of the momentum of the mid-late noughties phase has been lost. Year after year multiplex films become tamer and tamer even as Tamil films get better. You might possibly compare TAO unfavourably to Wednesday but Wednesday itself is no match for films like Anjaathey or OAK. I don’t see that kind of technique or audacity at all; as MANK says, multiplex films increasingly slot into a comforting, urbane mileu. This is also the part I liked about TAO in spite of those masala elements; that it shows the fringe elements of society, far from metropolitan safe spaces. Films like Satya did this once in Hindi cinema. But those days are gone. Only the Kahaani franchise holds promise but the second wasn’t as good as the first Kahaani movie either.

Thanks everyone again. Honestly I was concerned while writing this, whether it would connect . I am glad that a lot of people got it

Apu, yes there is lots of it that doesn’t work and this piece is no way to justify the quality of the final output. Acharya and Aamir are great masala cinephiles and they have created the world of this film with lots of love and respect . This piece is basically to acknowledge that.it goes without saying that Acharya is not as good a director as a masala movie lover he is

Anu, there never has been more generous superstar than Bachchan in acknowledging the contributions made by his fellow artists , in front or behind the camera, in his success. He still says that Deewaar is the greatest script ever written and it would have been successful irrespective of who played the character of Vijay, which of course is not true. But that’s how he looks at these things. I think that Salim Khan has some other beef with him. We never hear Javed Akthar complain about it

I think filmmakers are basically film lovers, who get up and start doing something about it.

If you read about most celebrated American filmmakers of recent decades like Scorsese, Tarantino, Nolan – you’ll find that they are passionate film lovers and can speak film history and anecdotes for hours.

I remember Rakeysh Om Prakash Mehra saying in an interview that he could only understand what screenplay is after working 5 years in the industry including Aks. I feel that’s a truly humble statement to make, and shows filmmaking is a learning process.

It’s just that some filmmakers are more adept and gifted than others. But irrespective, a film lover will find a way to tell his next story.

If Acharya loves films, he will find his language. And I think ToH is a film where he seems to be finding his voice, but may require a little more flair and confidence. What’s unfortunate is that the film will be perceived as his ‘biggest disaster’. So I think his challenge would be to make his next film of his choice, and the way he wants to.

On the other hand, as an admirer, I’m really curious how Aamir will ‘bounce back’. After Mela, he gave us Lagaan. Post Mangal Pandey, he came back with Rang De Basanti. Both benchmarks.

Rahul, what was great about those 80s actors that you mentioned, better actors or not, they had an effortless machoness, an unadulterated masculinity to them. That would help them ace those larger than life masala film roles. This is a quality that’s missing in today’s actors. They are all such girly men. Apart from Ranveer Singh, the rest like Varun dhawan or tiger Shroff has built mountains of muscle, but absolutely nothing masculine about them, they look rather weird. Compare them with someone like Anil Kapoor,. Who didn’t have a muscular body, in films like tezaab,awaargi or Meri Jung, you see the difference. That was one issue I had with Ranbirs potrayal of Sanjay dutt, Dutt for all his boyishness possessed a masculinity which was beyond his muscles. Ranbir could never put it across in his performance.

munis syed , I don’t know if acharya will get another chance, after this big a failure. But he should immediately move out of the Yashraj fold and try an make a smaller film to fully find his voice. Like Sriram ragavan did with badlapur after Agent vinod debacle

Btw what happened to our great Aamir Khan fan sanjana?. She has not been seen since the release of things. Hope the failure of this film hasn’t disappointed her enough to quit commenting

It’s clear he loves cinema, but that’s not the same as writing and directing. Tarantino doesn’t just love older/niche cinema — he channels that love into terrific writing and great directing, while still retaining a “voice.”

So far, VKA has shown he can do winks and nods and references — but he needs to learn to channel these elements into writing first (or hand over these references to another writer to do the job). Otherwise, we are left with just an empty homage.

MANK: Fully agree that the heroes of the 80s had a natural masculinity which I certainly cannot find in today’s heroes barring Ranveer. And I do think it changed with the Khans. Salman eventually found a masculine masala tone but in the 90s he did more romantic films and had a large female fan following. This happened in my 10th standard coaching class. The prof said he had seen Mission Kashmir and found it disappointing. All the girls rejoiced. Reason being they were Salman fans and resented Hrithik stealing pretty much everybody’s thunder with KNPH. Hrithik again has a great physique but looks too maasoom and nadan. None of the ruggedness of Anil Kapoor, Jackie Shroff or Sanjay Dutt.

MANK, totally agree with you about today’s heroes lacking that inherent masculinity. Today’s stars are boys masquerading as men.

I think the ‘metrosexual man’ sort of became popular with SRK. I mean, which other star until then would have dived into a bathtub filled with rose petals and come out shining?

I really don’t mind the fitness fad. It is the steroid-pumped muscles that make me want to hurl. That’s why people like Akshay Kumar / Milind Soman are still attractive. Fit without being the Hulk.

A friend and I were recently rewatching Kala Sona (which is great entertainment – really! 🙂 ) and realising that Feroz Khan and Danny Denzongpa didn’t need gym-toned musculature to be macho. Neither did Bachchan or Vinod Khanna or Dharmendra. Or go back even further – Dev/Dilip/Raj were all Men.

“Year after year multiplex films become tamer and tamer even as Tamil films get better”

Very true.

“but Wednesday itself is no match for films like Anjaathey or OAK.”

I fail to see your point. They are not of the same genre . I will not say Satya is a better movie than say Aanand. Also keep in mind, the “art” movies has pushed the envelope decades back. For example Drohkaal was superb.

BTW I have noticed that every Hindi movie Kamal made into tamil, was worse

Arjun->Satya
Drohkaal->Kuruthipunal
A Wednesday->UPO

The last one was murdered in the tamil version just to play to the gallery. In the Hindi version the relationship between the CM and Commissioner of Police (AKher) was shown to be professional. In tamil there was unnecessary ego wars between Mohalal (Comm) and Lakshmi (CS). Why this unnecessary drama?

Madan, sunny paaji is the quintessential 80s actor. Intense, a little gawky, very masculine and couldn’t dance to save his life. Which is the reason why he couldn’t hold on by late 90s. Gadar was a massive fluke. Post that, his career went down pretty quickly. He was perfect for those JP dutta Rahul rawail and Rajkumar santhoshi films, but once NRI movies became the norm, he couldn’t adapt

Anu, ah kala Sona, that’s the first feroze Khan film is saw. It was shown on TV. He was like the ultimate macho Man, the man’s man. He was a very solid masala film maker as well. He was making these Hollywoodish masala films which were very slick. Dharmatma, jaanbaaz and of course his most successful qurbaani.those movies had such terrific music.

Yeah Shahrukhkhan was the first to go the metro sexual way, which is very ironic. Because he was the most unconventional looking of the 3 Khan’s, he was also doing more unconventional movies than the others. He was the most theatrically trained of all the 90s actors. I think Karan johar and co had a big hand in metrosexualising Shahrukhkhan. How Aamir Khan became the most versatile performer inspite of his chocolate looks and how an unconventional looking and theatrically trained Shahrukhkhan managed to type himself as a romantic hero will remain the big irony of our times

MANK, I partially agree with you . I think projecting on screen masculinity is also a part of acting . For example , there is not much inherently masculine about Amitabh. If you pass him on the street, you would not probably look back. He was tall and gangly , but he actually came to typify the angry young man archetype.

Also, these macho 80s stars we speak of, taking an example of Sunny, he could look vulnerable in his love stories and could shout at the top of his lungs in action.

I cannot place my finger on where these newer guys are lacking – maybe its also about a different universe that the older stars evoke.

“I fail to see your point. They are not of the same genre .” – That being my point too. No more are TAO and Wednesday of the same genre. Wednesday struck a chord with audiences and did way better than it should have for a film with its cast, otherwise it’s nowhere as mainstream as TAO. On the other hand, mainstream crime thrillers in Bollywood are not generally as good. Again, a Kahaani franchise might be at a different level but these successes only seem to happen through serendipity in Bollywood.

I think VKA is getting some unnecessary flak for TOH . We all know that Aamir gets the all the credit if the movie is a hit ( even rumors of him ghost directing ), then why VKA alone is being thrown under the bus here.

Trial shows bhee hue hongey, why did AB or AK or AC not speak up then ?

@Rocky – ah, they didn’t have trial shows for ToH, did they? Also, I don’t think that other than on this blog, VKA is getting thrown under the bus. If you look at social media, the one taking the most heat is Aamir. It is he who is being asked about his much-vaunted script sense. It’s he who’s shouldering the blame for the film’s fate. Because it was always pegged as an ‘Aamir film’. And the hate has been directed at him.

Re: his ghost directing. This is one of the myths that will never die, no matter how many directors go on record to say that he is absolutely non-interfering once he’s on set. All his discussions are during script readings or rehearsals.

Even for films he produces, and for first-time directors like for Secret Superstar – the directors have gone on record to say that Aamir never even showed up on sets when he was not shooting. Nitesh Tiwari after Dangal, Rajkumar Hirani after Three Idiots, every single co-star from Madhavan and Siddharth to Fatima Sana Sheikh and Sanya Malhotra have said the same thing.

The man gets pilloried for being interested in the film as a whole. And that’s rather unfair.

FWIW, he’s also foregone his profit-sharing from ToH, which basically means he doesn’t get paid. Because he doesn’t take any money beforehand. His fees are a percentage of the profits.

And before anyone tells me that ToH didn’t make any profits and that’s why he can forego the money – YRF made its money alright. From overseas and the Chinese market – the rights have been sold for 2 billion. (Last I heard.) It’s the distributors who have lost money.

@MANK – don’t forget that Aamir has done pretty unconventional roles too; <>Raakh was released the same year as QSQT. And honestly, Aamir’s negative roles have been darker than SRK’s.

In Baazigar SRK walked away with audience sympathy even after he’s shown to be a psychopath.

In Darr too, the audience sympathy was with him; why do you think Sunny Deol never worked with SRK again? Interestingly, the first choice for that role was Aamir; he refused to sign because YRF wouldn’t give him a joint narration with Sunny.

And in Anjaam, by the time Madhuri finished with her revenge, the audience sympathy had turned firmly to SRK. My MIL was like, ‘Oh he’s repented, why can’t she forgive him? Women shouldn’t be so angry!’ head to desk This, when SRK’s character murdered Madhuri’s husband, framed her for murder, she suffers a miscarriage, etc., etc., etc. Ugh!

I’d to remind her that had Ranjeet been in that role, she would have gladly helped Madhuri kill him.

Whereas have you seen Aamir in 1947 Earth as the ice candy man? Do you remember that scene where he reveals Nandita Das’s presence to the mob outside, so they can assault her? How he coolly walks off from the scene when the mob rush the house? The look on his face still haunts me. There was no backstory about mad mothers, or deprived childhoods to excuse his behaviour. Aamir’s character is a jealous, vindictive man.

I really feel sorry about the Chopra-and-Joharisation of SRK. He’s an immensely talented actor who has become the ‘madari’s monkey’ as he once characterised himself.

Rocky, I don’t know what changes they could have made. They couldn’t have rewritten and reshoot the post interval portions or recast Fatima , which are the weakest points in the film.its a very big film that cannot be changed with few edits here and there.

Again Aamir was not wrong in doing the film. He did his work in the conception stage. It did not fully translate to screen. Secondly this wasn’t his production. Aditya Chopras Hollywood style franchise ambitions were much damaging to the film.

Anu, agreed about Earth. That was an extraordinary performance by Aamir. When it was shown in foreign film festivals, he was even compared to Al Pacino

Then again that’s my point. It should have been SRK doing these films and Aamir who should have been stuck in DDLJ kind of films. All credit to Aamirs courage and convictions. Not doing Darr and breaking away from Yashraj was the best thing he did.he turned his back on big banners and big filmmakers and started working with new filmmakers and different subjects. Which star would turn down offers from Yash Chopra and Subhash ghai and back a flop director like ashutosh gowarikar or a new director like John Mathew .both Sarfarosh and lagaan became milestones in his career. He started the process of doing one film at a time when actors where doing 10 Films or more

“Just like Indians who would rather slog it out in an acquired accent than speak comfortably in own language or in an Indian accented English.”

This applies mainly to NRI who make an effort to acquire local accent because of low tolerance of Americans/Canadians for foreign accent. They call it “thick accent” and it is a pejorative. At my work place, we have consultants from a neighboring state of TN and their communication skill is something which my American colleagues find it hard to understand. I won’t blame them if they make an attempt to acquire American accent.

As for Indian accented English, that is frowned upon even in India and is usually an object of ridicule. Remember the good ol days of Doordarshan news. All English newsreader had non-indian accent. Sasi Kumar, P C Ramakrishna etc.

In other words, it is our own inferiority complex which is forcing us to do this. Add to it, west has its own double standards when it comes to accents. Australians, Britishers have “thick” accent too, but they are not ridiculed to the same extent like accent of Apu.

That’s not true. People like Sasi Kumar, Komal GB Singh, Salma Sultan, Tejeshwar Singh, Geetanjali Iyer, Rini Simon, Neeti Raveendran, Meenu, et al spoke perfectly decent Indian English. The difference was that they all followed received pronunciation and it was absolutely fantastic to listen to 30 minutes of excellent English. None of them affected accents.

Re: NRIs in America. There are plenty of us who haven’t changed our accents to suit American ears. I’ve lived here 20 years now, and my accent is the same as it was (and so say my family and friends in India). So is my husband’s. We are not unique.

I think – and this solely a guess on my part – that if you thought/spoke in English when you were in India, you tended to keep the same accent throughout. Whereas if you were more inclined to speak in your mother tongue or a regional language except when necessary in India, you are more likely to pick up an accent when you come to the US. (I am not talking about people who develop an American accent the minute they step into the US embassy for their visas.)

While I can – and do – code switch when necessary, I find it rather odd to deliberately change my accent to a put-on one. (Again, not talking about people who come here to do their undergrad; it’s very easy to pick up accents when you’re young – my son is full-on American with his friends, and not so much with us.) There really isn’t a unique ‘American’ accent either; a Southerner will speak differently from a North-East American; a person in the mid-west has a completely different accent. And if they can deal with English accents and French ones, and East European ones (none of whom change to become ‘American’) I don’t see why we should either.

I’m perfectly fine with my Indian accent. I do tend to follow received pronunciation myself, but that I did while I was in India as well.

Indians living in India don’t ridicule Indian accents. It may be specific words like say zero which Malayalis and North Indians murder in different ways. That’s different though. That’s wrong pronunciation, not accent.

You are right. I should have called it convent school accent. Non Indian accent gave a wrong impression of fake firang accent like that of Priyanka.

As you grew up in India, you must be aware of a clear difference in English spoken by those who studied in Govt schools (including Kendriya Vidayala) vs DPS, Modern School type.

Madan: What matters is, someone with a non-convent school accent has a higher bar at work. When a job description demands “excellent communication skills required”, it is a code word for “non convent school type need not apply”.

The whole concept of group discussion in IIM and other MBA colleges is to filter out those who are not good in English. Is it a coincidence that I am yet to meet one MBA from a reputed college who speaks English with a lousy accent.

The accents maybe due to genetic factors and mouth and tongue coordination in different races. An Indian will be self conscious at first when he or she tries to get this accent due to job requirements. When he or she uses this strange accent(strange because it lacks a certain naturalness) with his or her Indian friends in India, he or she may get some sniggers.
One can understand(for example) Bachchan’s english perfectly because it still sounds Indian inspite of its sophistication.

Jeez Anu, that took me back to another time. As a kid i was most intrigued by the rose on Selma sultan’s hair. Meenu was my favorite of them all.Maybe because she looked exactly like My favorite second std class teacher 🙂

It has sparked an interesting discussion. I still think ‘masala films’ can be relevant but it is in dire need of reinvention. The principles and tropes can be familiar but they to offer a fresher perspective atleast in terms of the form to be more relevant to the younger audience. In that sense, Gangs of wasseypur was probably the last great masala film in hindi.

masala film culture has to be preserved. its our indigenous cinema, like western is for American cinema, wuxia is for chinese. its a combination of masala and star system that has stopped hollywood from making inroads into our film industries. the hollywood films for all their technical wizardry are cold films, emotionless, while ours burn with emotion . of course , we have to adapt masala for our times. another major issue is the high ticket prices. the real connoisseurs of masala are not the upper class multiplex audience but who belong more to the lower strata of the society. film viewing has become unaffordable for them. one of the main reasons why thugs folded so quickly was the high ticket prices charged by YRF

Btw, Gangs was not a masala film, it was a film that critiques masala films, as is evident from the final speech given by Tigmanshu dhulia about hindi cinema screwing the brains of every youngster in the heartland, making him beleive he is a hero in a film.. Anurag Kashyap is the typical Hollywood film guy who looks down upon masala films. RGV on the other hand is a great lover of masala cinema. even though he re mixes masala tropes with hollywood narrative techniques in his films. i enjoyed both GOW films though

Tambi Dude : I will have to know which region, which field you are referring to, to corroborate it. In Mumbai I have not encountered this accent snobbery and there are people at high levels who still have an accent. I have a mild Tamil accent myself. In fields like manufacturing, finance and law or even more ‘blue collar’ services like oil drilling, there isn’t much accent snobbery (if anything, even bad English is tolerated if the person has good technical skills). In marketing and advertising, yeah you might encounter it. But that doesn’t really define all of India or even corporate India.

Anu Warrier: Right, my aunt has been living in the US since 87 or so and still doesn’t have an American accent. It’s a neutral accent basically, the one that most Indians fluent in English speak. On the other hand I haven’t yet met an American born desi who didn’t have an American accent and that’s not only fine, it’s sensible IMO.

Anurag Kashyap is the typical Hollywood film guy who looks down upon masala films.

This, I don’t agree with, MANK. Kashyap’s sensibilities are more European than Hollywood. And he doesn’t hate masala cinema at all. He still counts himself a big Bachchan fan.

It’s just that with his sensibilities he finds it hard to integrate regular masala tropes into his films. But he does reference them — quite ingeniously where he can. GoW is full of such referencing. And so is a film like Manmarziyan.

He does have a certain kind of aesthetic which is at odds with regular masala cinema — but whenever he references it in his films, he does so lovingly. Not in the kind of mocking tone adopted by the likes of Farah Khan who seems to both love and hate masala at the same time. I have severe reservations with the latter approach.

Viktor is also a big adherent of masala cinema but in trying to update its registers he indulges in a lot of winking. This self-awareness displayed, especially in a film like Tashan, robs the narrative of a strong emotional core. That’s been his problem all along.

Now that I’ve had some more time to think about ToH, I’ll jot down a few more thoughts on the debacle.

1) The problem with Viktor isn’t about his intentions. On paper, this sounds like a real fun project. The problem lies with his incompetence – as An Jo has pointed out (also NyKavi), he knew what he was attempting; he did not misuse Bachchan’s presence in the film at all. And Bachchan isn’t just another character in the film. There is a justified, albeit misguided, attempt to recapture his past glory; to relive some of his most iconic moments in this film – but, and this is a big but, it’s quite a superficial exercise. The gesturality does ring hollow because there is no strong emotional core behind it. Khudabaksh, at best, is a mighty and glorified presence – there is nothing else beyond that. With all due respect to Baahubali, you don’t sign up Amitabh Bachchan to play Katappa’s role – and then try to relive his past through some signature moments. That does sound as hollow as it appears hollow on screen. I agree there are financial considerations and Bachchan isn’t the Box Office draw he once was – but that’s all the more reason to use someone else in his place.

2) This might sound controversial but you can’t make a character like Firangi Mallah the focal point in a masala universe. Beneath the laughs and the character’s idiosyncrasies, there lies a deeply duplicitous person. One whose actions cause a loss of lives and it just makes no sense that everyone from the British to the gang of Thugs treat him with such warmth and affection. Even after he is found out, multiple number of times. This is just bad writing. In a true-blue masala universe, a character like Firangi would occupy a side hero’s role. Think Mithun Chakraborty in Ghulami. Firangi would be a very interesting side character but one doesn’t see reluctant heroes in a masala movie, let alone double-dealing ones. Of course, Firangi’s character ties in with YR’s long list of duplicitous romantic heroes (all the Rajs, be it Malhotras or Aryans), but that’s a different can of worms.

3) I agree that Aamir probably had the time of his life playing Firangi Mallah. But for some reason, he misread the scope of his character. Firangi isn’t a hero, he’s an anti-hero, much like Jack Sparrow (this is where the PoTC reference finally comes to life) but ToH is by no means a Hollywood fantasy-adventure. ToH is decidedly a masala film, warts and all, and in this universe, one simply can’t connect too much with such a character. When the stakes are set up high and the spoils include revenge and independence from the British Raj, one needs a hero as the chief character, not a buffoon. Again, this doesn’t mean Aamir has done a bad job or anything, it’s in fact the opposite, but this is contrary to the film’s own initial build up.

4) And so, ToH ends up being a massively confused film. It’s mostly about a Thug-like character (Firangi Mallah), who isn’t exactly a Thug but imbibes some of the characteristics associated with the erstwhile Thugs. However, it also tries to up the ante by attempting a revenge-fuelled melodrama, and this is where the chickens come home to roost. It’s not the first time this has happened to a Viktor film. He’s had this problem since Tashan.He doesn’t realize that his wink-and-nudge tactics creates a massive imbalance for the audience. And no one can blame them either – it’s difficult to laugh and deeply care about a serious cause at the same time.

Madan: Like your aunt, I have seen Brits retaining their British accent despite living in US for decades. I think it all depends at what age one moves to US. If it is in their 20s or later, by then the original accent is quite hardened to change.

“It’s a neutral accent basically, the one that most Indians fluent in English speak. ”

Kashyap doesn’t make masala films though. His films are a curious mix of world cinema and native Bollywood (masala) registers. I really like his sense of humor — it’s dark, irreverent and caustically funny. And compared to others, he genuinely cares about his characters. It helps that he was a script writer before becoming a director and his directorial craft is just top-notch.

Even in Manmarziyan, there’s a scene where both Robbie and Rumi are drunk and they mouth off all the cliched Bollywood lines (Tum Nahin Samjhoge Rahul…Kuch Kuch Hota Hai and then Robbie corrects her — Rahul nahin Robbie; Gaaon Waalon is a reference to Sholay; Mukhtar Singh to Kaalia & Shehenshah). He’s not making fun of Bollywood. He’s referencing it in a way that suggests he likes these aspects of Bollywood but can’t quite fit them into his films. At least organically. But I very well understand that his films are not for everyone. He doesn’t use mainstream stars; shies away from popular (or populist) subjects and regularly tries to subvert genre tropes. His films are unsettling, first and foremost.

I’m not snob enough to look down at masala cinema while enjoying Kashyap’s brand of film-making. There’s nothing quite like a well-made masala film. Done right, it gets the heart soaring, lips smiling and one’s body ripe with emotion. Unfortunately, it’s a lost art in Bollywood. What we get is half-baked attempts with an eye on generating quick bucks. It needs a rooted director to pull it off — a breed that’s rarer than the fabled unicorn, in present day Bollywood.

I agree with almost all you say about Kashyap, but I find his direction a tad underwhelming. Because, somewhere, In. Every. Film. he loses direction (pun unintended) towards the end. He has a problem with the finishing touches – he just doesn’t know how to pull all those various strands together. The strands that he so lovingly picks apart to show us the warp and weft of his character. They remain undone and frequently, I’m left feeling, “Damn, this could have been the perfect film if…’

It’s a neutral accent basically, the one that most Indians fluent in English speak.

That’s exactly it.

On the other hand I haven’t yet met an American born desi who didn’t have an American accent and that’s not only fine, it’s sensible IMO.

My sons code-switch. Their accents are totally American when they are with their friends. (My second son is US-born.) But not when they are speaking to us. My [totally invalidated] guess is that if the [Indian] parents quite naturally speak English at home along with their mother tongues, then the kids end up learning to speak neutrally. Most Indian kids I know, who have very pronounced American accents, have parents who only speak their own languages inside the house.

As you say, it’s fine – they live here. Most of them were born here. How else would they speak?

@MANK – I remember that rose! And yes, I remember Meenu – she was the weakest news anchor of that lot, though. But what I remember her for is that huge grin of hers; even when she was reading the news of a tragedy, she grinned. 🙂

Re: fake accents – I’m not too sure that Priyanka’s accent is completely fake. She studied here in the US. Coming at that crucial age where one stands out due to the colour of her skin, she must have moulded herself into fitting in where she could. Kids pick up accents very quickly. And it’s pretty darn difficult to get rid of that unless you really work hard to do so. Besides, now she’s working here (and has been for many years) – it is very easy to fall back into old patterns when that’s what she’s hearing around her.

@ Mank chetta, GOW was a reinvention of the ‘masala genre’ – the themes were familiar but he wasn’t interested in making it the centre of his narrative, using all the popular tropes to subvert them.
I am not sure of Kashyap’s contempt for masala films, he infact is a massive of Bachchan and has professed his admiration for films like Zanzeer and sholay.

MANK Chettan: As of now it’s just a one-off Chettaa. Have been in contact with Sreehari Chettan from Rediff since the last 2 months or so. Things just fell into place that way. Hope I’ll get to build on it

Ravishanker Sir: Thanks a lot!

sanjana, TambiDude, Anu Chechi, Madan: Not to quell what certainly is an interesting offshoot of a conversation, but 2 British officers talking in Hindi (when their plans must not be heard by locals) and Indians choosing to speak in US or Brit accented English abroad ain’t really the same thing right?

And as for the latter, it does boil down to how people want to get understood faster and better, right? Not saying that it is THE right thing to do, but doesn’t their confusion and (possible) lack of knowledge about India complicate matters too? Isn’t that why the so-called ‘uniform Indian accent’ (a misnomer especially when each Indian language has each share of unique vowels and consonants) is assumed to exist? It isn’t even like what we know as ‘General American’ right, which is considered to be derived from the TransAtlantic Dialect? And there could also be the fact that we don’t take too kindly to how people from other parts of India talk right? Certainly there should be more to the trend than all the sweeping generalisations and easy answers like ‘inferiority complex’ and ‘national pride’ suggest

but 2 British officers talking in Hindi (when their plans must not be heard by locals) and Indians choosing to speak in US or Brit accented English abroad ain’t really the same thing right?

I’m confused. Did anyone say it was the same thing? I was commenting solely on Tambi Dude’s comment, not on this post, or on your article. So was Madan.

Two, no one (so far as I’m aware) said anything about a ‘uniform Indian accent’. Madan did, however, mention a ‘neutral Indian accent’ (and I agree) which is a completely different kettle of fish.

I honestly don’t know where you’re getting that “that we don’t take too kindly to how people from other parts of India talk ” or that we were making ‘sweeping generalisations’. About what, exactly? I certainly didn’t do any such thing.

To me, English is a language like any other. I make the effort to speak it correctly. As I do any of the other languages I speak. Pronunciation, diction, all make a difference. I certainly appreciate good language skills in anyone, irrespective of the language they speak. Other than that, I don’t judge people on how they speak English – unless, of course, they are interviewing for a job as an editor. Then, yes, since excellent English is a pre-requisite, and so are editing skills (they are not mutually inclusive), it makes a difference to whether I will hire you [general you] or not.

To me, English is a language like any other. I make the effort to speak it correctly. As I do any of the other languages I speak. Pronunciation, diction, all make a difference.

yes they make a difference, the difference in not reaching a top position at MNC, IT companies or hedge fund companies. The natural indian accent you mentioned applies to those who live in cities and metropolis. In other parts of India the accent is like the girl shown here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bp85e6gGjLA

The cynic in me thinks that many like the status quo because it is a competitive advantage in a country where too many people are chasing few jobs. The easiest way to keep millions away from competition is to ensure the “english” advantage.

He has a problem with the finishing touches – he just doesn’t know how to pull all those various strands together. The strands that he so lovingly picks apart to show us the warp and weft of his character. They remain undone and frequently, I’m left feeling, “Damn, this could have been the perfect film if…’

Apart from Bombay Velvet, which was thoroughly underwhelming, no, I didn’t really get this feeling while watching most of his films.

As BR says, perhaps it’s the writing that disappoints you. When I talk about his craft, I refer to mostly his command over the medium. His staging of scenes, his visual mastery — notice how he makes films within a budget of 3-4 crores, but they never look cheap. They are replete with great shots. When he’s making mood pieces like Raman Raghav 2.0, the lighting reflects his thinking. No one, literally no filmmaker ever, has captured Bombay as he has over a multitude of films. Think Black Friday, Raman Raghav 2.0 and more recently, Sacred Games.

The 12 minute chase sequence from Black Friday, which was part funny, part realistic, was mimicked by none other than Danny Boyle in Slumdog Millionaire.

He understands sound and economy of movement. Even when he goes full meta, like adding mysterious dancers who pop out of nowhere in Dev D, Mukkabaaz & Manmarziyan, it seems like a nice touch because they seem to gel with the flow of the story.

The overhead shot that acts as the climax for Ugly is a visual masterstroke. Nothing else needs to be spoken. And by God, that hits you hard.

I could go on and on but suffice it is to say that he is, indeed, a virtuoso filmmaker. One who knows his craft well. He also goes all out (perhaps too hard at times) to subvert genre tropes, but that’s a topic for another day.

@Saket, I like Anurag Kashyap’s films. I think he’s one of the more interesting filmmakers we have today. And I agree with most of what you said. My problem is, as I posted in response to BR, that he just doesn’t seem to know how to finish. Somewhere, he has a problem and I’m trying to tease out what it is that bothers me about his films. Why I feel, well, not totally satisfied when I walk out of his movies. Perhaps I expect more from him? I’m not sure; there are things I will forgive other filmmakers for, but not Kashyap. Does that make sense?

“yes they make a difference, the difference in not reaching a top position at MNC, IT companies or hedge fund companies.”

So does it mean anyone with good English and become a CEO? It takes more than that. In fact many people are groomed for the role, which is why you don’t see people in the top management talking accented English.

notice how he makes films within a budget of 3-4 crores, but they never look cheap.

^^ Some of the credit goes to Rajiv Ravi…But all your other points become evident when you watch Rajiv Ravi directorials — he is only able to replicate the technical aspects, as a director he is not a patch on Kashyap…Maybe it’s the opposite – Rajiv Ravi learnt to make cheap movies look polished from Kashyap…

Tambi Dude: I am going to say that perhaps your experience reflects more how MNCs in America react to Indians with a strong accent. My career isn’t a very long one but it’s been long enough to have met people from different walks of life. At hedge funds etc Gujaratis and Marwaris dominate as in other finance oriented roles. I am talking about Mumbai but it IS the financial capital. Most Gujju /Marus speak average, functional English at best and with an accent. That’s a generalisation but as a chartered accountant in Mumbai, I have met more than enough of them to understand the trend. I have also met and made acquaintances with people from IT and those from a technical background don’t exactly have awesome English again. If proficiency in English is the gateway to exciting sectors like hedge funds/IT, I wonder what I am doing in boring manufacturing. 😀 It’s the sectors that require ‘soft skills’ where there is a high emphasis on the quality of English you speak. So, if you work for consulting firms like McKinsey, BCG, Roland Berger etc then yes there a strong Indian accent is a negative. I will return to this notion of a strong accent in a bit but anyway for these firms, it is important to impress decision makers in blue chip firms (the only clients who can afford their fees), so this preference is understandable. In pure back office roles (NOT voice based call centers!), no, even if it is an MNC, the accent is not important and even faulty English will often be tolerated.

Coming to strong Indian accents, the problem is less of accent but of bad pronunciation. We do take liberties with how we pronounce words. While English even as spoken in various parts of US and UK (Some UK accents are the worst way to speak the language, no kidding) has many variations, pronunciations have to fall within a narrow band. This isn’t about accent snobbery, it’s about being understood. Plain neutral Indian accent the way DD newsreaders or Prannoy Roy speak is the best from that point of view IMO. No undue inflections, no sing song lilt like the British and no nasality like the Americans, just crystal clear albeit dry. Do you HAVE to go to a convent for that? As somebody who did not go to convent schools and who knew classmates with a perfect accent, I am going to say no. Does it help to live in the metros? Yes but it depends.

“So does it mean anyone with good English and become a CEO? It takes more than that. In fact many people are groomed for the role”
I clearly mentioned MNC and other public companies and not family run business. No one expects T Series to appoint an outsider as CEO and hence it does not matter whether Gulshan Kumar or his progenies can construct one sentence in English correctly.

” which is why you don’t see people in the top management talking accented English”

No I see them fluent in English, which begs the question. Why have we made it a requirement in the corporate world.

No I see them fluent in English, which begs the question. Why have we made it a requirement in the corporate world.

What is the option? What common language can you think of that will fit the bill? Whichever language you choose, you will need to be fluent in that if you want to succeed, no? Try speaking bad French (if that becomes the common language) and see how far you can go.

As for speaking it well, it is not only in India that there is an issue with speaking fluent English in the upper echelons. George Bernard Shaw made a pitch for it well in the middle of the last century. Here’s the clip from the movie based on his work.

Besides, why is fluency in a language (any languag?) derided? Actually, scratch that – it is only fluency in English that is always derided.

Rocky : From back in the 90s, when I grew up, Spiderman /Superman costumes were coveted by kids. So I am curious as to why it should bother you now and why you think it is a particular trait of children of India returned parents. In the early noughties, any kid whose parents could afford it was reading Harry Potter. While autowalas in Mumbai forced you to listen to Himesh Reshamiyya. Different things turn different people on.

“What is the option? What common language can you think of that will fit the bill? Whichever language you choose, you will need to be fluent in that if you want to succeed, no? ”

Why should fluency in English matter for a company like Proctor and Gamble or Hindustan Lever which sells personal hygiene products. It is impossible to find anyone there in upper management who speaks English like Narendra Modi (he speaks reasonably well, but with terrible accent). Not everyone works in the communications dept.

I have met doctors in small towns like Ambala and Shimla [ they were small towns 30 yrs ago ] who were professionally competent , but avoided talking in English as much as they could. They were just not good at it and no one cared as they were good Doctors. If self employed like them can succeed, I see no reason why it is a critical qualification in large corporations where English has least impact in the products or services they offer.
As I mentioned earlier, “English” advantage works well for certain people to keep out competition and they have no incentive to change the status quo.

Rocky: What’s wrong with celebrating Halloween in India ? What next? Ban Valentine’s day. You sound like those pissed off tamilians 25 yrs ago who were aghast at celebration of Holi in Chennai and considered it as an unwanted north indian virus to be eradicated.

Anu Warrier: It’s the fault of English itself. It’s so flexible and adaptible that it lends itself to eloquent expression even without much vocabulary. This also makes it more susceptible to populist impulses. It’s not only in India indeed, lot of Britishers dislike RP accents and in US too, posh accents are disliked by those who don’t use it.

Tambidude : My current CFO is from HUL and while he is a fluent English speaker, his Tamil accent is unmistakable. That said, I think the filtering is about IIT+IIM, not specifically English. And the vast majority of people in IIT IIM club are from a privileged background, hence have studied in English medium in good schools and are fluent in English. It is this club mentality that needs to be attacked. It’s not about whether or not people who aren’t good in English can perform well in MNCs but rather whether people not from the IIT/IIM club are really so unqualified for the job.

Just a history lesson detailing “English” Advantage. Until mid 60s, English was not only a compulsory language in IAS examination, but was also counted in overall ranking. In other words screw up in English, and either you won’t pass IAS or will be ranked low ( a virtual death sentence for career). Guess who were most happy. South Indians and specially Tam Brams. By 60s, Hindi speaking states started protesting and English was removed from the overall marks. If I am right, one had to still pass English, but it had no bearing in overall marks. The effect of that change was visible within few years when UP started sending IAS pass in large numbers. Allahabad univ was so famous that if someone was preparing for UP State Services it was considered as a come down or a desperate measure.

I remember I was talking to a retired IAS officer (tambram) who said “that was the beginning of the decline of IAS”. What arrogance.

Madan- Re.-So I am curious as to why it should bother you now and why you think it is a particular trait of children of India returned parents.
Because they dress as the Characters and go door to to door asking for treats on Halloween day , I was talking to my bhabhi who too is an India Returned attorney , she goes people give out Ghajak, Rewri, chikki too..LOL

Dude, i don’t know if you’re being purposely obtuse or you’re just beating on the same drum for effect. So a doctor (or a cobbler, or a pharmacist or ‘insert self-employed profession of your choice here) in a small town providing medical (or comparable) services in that small town is the same as a corporation that employs people from all over India?

So all the employees need only speak in their own language, and somehow they will all understand each other? You need a common language to communicate – it is up to you [general you] to decide which one to use. It will have to be one which everyone, or at least everyone understands. Which of India’s official 27 languages do you propose? Fortunately or unfortunately, English is the only common language that we have in India.

Secondly, if you’re good at your job and it is one that doesn’t require much ‘communication’, there aren’t very many companies that ask for perfect diction. Fluency, yes, but not neutral accents.

I really don’t get the ‘English is a way to keep out competition’ argument. You live in the US. Are you arguing that immigrants who come from all over the world should speak only in their own languages here? And if not, the US is ‘keeping out the competition’??

“So a doctor (or a cobbler, or a pharmacist or ‘insert self-employed profession of your choice here) in a small town providing medical (or comparable) services in that small town is the same as a corporation that employs people from all over India?”

The example I gave of a Doctor was for a reason. Here is a highly qualified field where the medium of instruction is only English. Yet because of the cultural milieu in small towns, those Doctors just do not opportunity to be fluent in English. Yet it has no impact in their success.

And a company selling sanitary napkins requires English because some mallu may be posted in Kolkata and English will be his only lifeline in office. So how will he survive outside office ?? How many people get posted in a state where local language is different. And compare that number with the number of people, who find their career screwed because they are not good in English. One has to be a
Phd in English literature to conclude that people belonging to the former is much larger than the latter and hence should be given importance.